We're already there, there's no need for this hypothetical. We've reached the point where we have trademarked plants, and natural cross-pollination with neighbouring fields has led to fines to farmers because they're technically growing someone else's intellectual property plant.

Vaccines and drugs whose research is paid for with public funds are copyrighted and poorer nations are forbidden from obtaining them at reasonable prices.

Vanguard technologies like FPGAs are seeing a rise in later years not because the concept is new, but because 40-year-old key patents of the technology started to expire and this allowed third parties to improve on the technology, and increase its availability and affordability.

Time and time again, software and hardware designed and published with open source but licensed copyright (or copyleft) are blatantly copied and modified without permission by big tech, without any credit or compensation to the original author, in complete violation of the license terms, and nothing ever happens because they have better lawyers than the small open source people.

AI models are unlawfully trained illegally with immense amounts of copyrighted material, and then substitute artists with real understanding of the art.

No need to make up hypotheticals for a society in which this already happens

Nah, that's a fucking euphemism, we need a better word to describe it

No. Al-Jazeera published a report that the electronic devices that exploded had high explosives embedded, and I'm not in a target country

[...] is a provocation worthy of military invasion?

See, that's an entirely different statement. Threatening to join Russia's geopolitical rival's military alliance while bordering Russia, is provocation. The acts in Donbas since 2014 are provocation. Is it "worthy of military invasion"? I don't believe so. The proto-fascist Russian government is clearly not acting entirely out of pure will and self defense, and I'll be the last to defend it since I have loved ones directly suffering under that government. But it's important to frame things correctly, and yes, threatening to join NATO while bordering Russia is a huge provocation.

Particularly, NATO has no history of defensiveness (as far as I know it has never intervened for the defensive purposes it's supposed to uphold), but it has a history of offensiveness. Yugoslavia and Libya can both attest to that, and extra-officially (technically not NATO interventions even if many NATO members participated one way or another), countries such as Iraq can also attest. The case of Iraq is a perfect example of what unprovoked invasion in modern times is, and we are still forced to see libs fall heads over heels for a fucking Dick Satan Cheney endorsement to Kamala "most lethal army in the world" Harris.

So, yes, when a country bordering you chooses to join a historically aggressive military alliance that openly challenges you, that's huge provocation. And it's important to state so when we talk about the war in Ukraine.

completely unprovoked

considering joining NATO

Those two statements are in the same phrase... My god

They absolutely don't both solve the problem, plenty of homeless people in the capitalist world compared to the 0 people in former USSR

Not very hopeful but it's something

Probably depends on the country, I'm pretty sure here in Spain you can donate books to libraries, and I highly doubt they go to the publisher and call them to ask "hey, want any good ol' buckaroos?"

Russia's Putin as opposed to...? Just funny phrasing